DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulation of Urtica Dioica L. on Grasslands Vozár Ľ., Jančovič J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulation of Urtica Dioica L. on Grasslands Vozár Ľ., Jančovič J Regulation of Urtica dioica L. on grasslands Vozár Ľ., Jančovič J. and Bačová S. Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Department of Grassland Ecosystems and Forage Crops, Nitra, Slovakia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract We studied some possibilities for the biological and mechanical control of the ground cover of Galio-Urticetea Passarge ex Kopecký 1969, with the association of Urtica dioica L., in a place which belongs to the village of Chvojnica in the Strážov Hills in the middle of Slovakia. The place was used as a corral for cattle in the past. Cattle had a great influence on the eutrophication of the soil. The floristic composition changed there. We examined 4 variants in our experiment: 1st – control, without cutting; 2nd – cutting every 5th week with biomass being taken away; 3rd – cutting every 5th week with mulch- ing; 4th –Dactylis glomerata L. and Trifolium repens L. reseeding, cutting four times a year. According to the five-year results of the different types of regulation it seems that the best way of regulation is reseeding with the strong competitive species Dactylis glomerata L. and Trifolium repens L. Keywords: regulation of weed infestation, Urtica dioica L., stand eutrophication, corral for cattle Introduction Livestock numbers have decreased to 1/3 of their original level in Slovakia since the year 1989 (Green Report, 2007). The area of grassland utilisation has been reduced. Inaccessible areas have been abandoned and degraded and have become covered by weeds. These stands have low or toxic forage value and these weeds also have negative influences on the en- vironment and formation of the countryside. One way to destroy undesirable species in grasslands is mechanical treatment. The ground cover is removed when it is at the maximum expansion of the leaves and the root and rhizome carbohydrate reserve matter is depleted (Vozár et al., 2007). Frame (1992) has a similar opinion. He writes that many weeds can be effectively controlled by cultural or mechanical measures, especially when dealt with at the correct stage in their life cycle. Another possibility for the biological control of weeds is reseeding with strong competitive species. Vozár et al. (2006) found out a way through the biyearly monitoring of different types of regulation. They state that the best treatments were reseeding with powerful competitive species and tillage with the subsequent sowing of the powerful competitive species. The aim of this study was to investigate some possibilities for the biological and mechani- cal control of Urtica dioica L. in grasslands overgrown with weeds. Materials and methods The site is situated at an altitude of 640 m a.s.l. in the locality of Chvojnica in the Strážov Hills (48°53'N, 18°33'E). Climatically it is a mildly temperate region, a mildly dry re- Alternative functions of grasslands 559 gion with prevailing cold winters. According to year-long measurements, the average year temperature is 7.5 °C and that within the growing season is 11.1°C. The long-term average of the whole year sum of precipitation is 848 mm and that of the growing season 431 mm. The soil-forming substrate is formed by crystalline rocks with a predominance of granite and crystalline slates on which a brown, acidic, sandy-loam soil (Cambisol) has developed. The original grassland is represented by the Lolio-Cynosuretum Tx. 1937 association. The place was used as a corral for cattle in the past. Cattle have had a great influence on the soil eutrophication in the corral, which changed the floristic composition. An association of Galio-Urticetea Passarge ex Kopecký 1969 was created there, within an Urtica dioica L. association. We monitored four variants in our experiment: 1st – control, without cutting; 2nd – cutting every 5th week, harvesting of above-ground phytomass; 3rd – cutting every 5th week, mulching with above-ground phytomass; 4th – Dactylis glomerata L. and Trifolium repens L. reseeding, cutting every 5th weeks. The first cut of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th variants took place when the ground cover was 250–300 mm high. The dominance of the botanical groups and individual species was determined in accord- ance with Regal (1956). This was done each spring and autumn. Results and discussion The botanical composition of the association Galio-Urticetea Passarge ex Kopecký 1969 over the period investigated (2004–2008) is given in Table 3. The community consisted mainly of nettles (Urtica dioica L., from 90.0 to 95.3%) before the regulative interven- tions were applied. The changes came after their application. We found only a minimal change in the portion of Urtica dioica L. in variant 1, which represented the original association Galio-Urticetea Passarge ex Kopecký 1969. Its pro- portion did not drop to less than 83.3%. Table 1. Agrochemical soil properties of the original site. Depth N P K pH/KCl tot C (g kg–1) (mm) (mg.kg–1) ox 100 5.4 1,735.0 28.0 717.0 21.0 200 5.6 4,080.0 84.0 590.0 34.0 600 3.7 2,512.0 6.0 150.0 22.0 Table 2. Dates of reseeding and cutting in the first year of the investigation (2004). Variants Reseeding 1st cut 2nd cut 3rd cut 4th cut 1st – – – – – 2nd – 12.5. 16.6. 21.7. 25.8. 3rd 20.4. 12.5. 16.6. 21.7. 25.8. 4th - 12.5. 16.6. 21.7. 25.8. 560 Grassland Science in Europe Vol 14 Table 3. Botanical composition of the association Galio-Urticetea Passarge ex Kopecký 1969 im- pacted by different management (%) (average of replicates) Variants 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Year groups Botanical spring autumn spring autumn spring autumn spring autumn 2004 – – – 1.3 0.7 15.0 - 21.7 2005 – – 5.0 3.3 17.0 23.3 13.3 84.0 2006 0.3 - 9. 7 3.7 24.0 10.0 68.3 89.3 2007 4.3 0.3 13.0 16.0 23.3 22.7 79.7 91.7 Grasses 2008 6.0 - 41.7 42.7 43.0 21.0 88.7 89.0 s2 8.00 0.0 265.7 301.7 231.5 32.8 1639.1 901.1 2004 – – – 1.7 – – – 51.7 2005 – – 0.7 0.0 + + 48.0 9.3 2006 – – 1.7 1.7 1 + 12.3 0.3 2007 – – 3.7 6.7 2.3 2.0 + - Legumes 2008 – – 4.0 10.3 1.0 11.7 0.3 2.3 s2 – – 3.2 18.5 0.9 38.9 512.1 488.0 2004 97.7 100.0 91.7 64.3 95.3 48.3 91.7 13.3 2005 100.0 100.0 60.0 95.0 44.7 58.7 21.0 5.7 2006 96.3 100.0 88.7 94.7 66.7 90.0 17.7 6.0 Herbs 2007 95.7 99. 7 81.0 75.0 68.7 75.3 17.0 8.3 2008 91.0 100.0 51.7 47.0 55.3 65.7 10.3 7.7 s2 11.0 0.0 317.3 421.1 359.1 254.1 1145.1 9.5 2004 90.0 100.0 91.7 45.0 95.3 29.0 91.0 8.3 L. 2005 96.0 91.7 15.0 8.3 23.0 4.7 8.7 0.3 2006 90.7 94.7 2.7 1.3 22.3 7.3 1.3 + 2007 88.0 97.0 1.7 0.7 10.7 6.3 0.3 0.3 2008 83.3 92.7 1.3 1.7 6.0 1.3 + + Urtica dioica s2 21.0 11.4 1529.0 362.4 1328.7 121.2 1930.4 21.3 2004 2.3 – 8.3 32.7 4.0 36.7 8.3 13.3 2005 – – 34.3 1.7 38.3 18.0 16.7 1.0 2006 3.3 – + – 8.3 – 1.7 4.3 2007 – – 2.3 2.3 5.7 – 3.3 – Blank places 2008 3.0 – 2.7 + 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.0 s2 2.6 – 230.9 246.6 234.4 259.2 43.7 30.3 s2 – variance, + rarely, – without presence The share of grasses rose to 42.7% (autumn 2008) with cutting every fifth week with phytomass harvesting (variant 2). It was attended by the dominance of Poa trivialis L. (34.3%). The portion of Urtica dioica L. fell to approximately 1%. The negative effect Alternative functions of grasslands 561 was the substitution of Urtica dioica L. by Rumex obtusifolius L. (44.3%, autumn 2008). The positive effect was the increasing of the leguminous part (to 10.3%, autumn 2008). A similar tendency to that in variant 2 was observed in variant 3 (cutting + mulching). There Urtica dioica L. was also replaced by Rumex obtusifoilius L. Its portion increased to 54.3% (autumn 2008). The most positive effect in the botanical composition from the animal feeding viewpoint was found in variant 4. There Urtica dioica L. was substituted by reseeded Dactylis glomerata L. Its share of the ground cover stabilised at a level around 80.0% from the 3rd year of the investigation. The development of the reseeded Trifolium repens L. was also very interesting. Its portion increased from 0.0% to 51.7% in the 1st year of the observa- tion. However, a rapid reduction in its ground cover, to 9.3% (autumn 2005), was found the next year. The portion of blank places of the exploitation variants (variant 2–4) rose noticeably from the beginning of our observation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urtica Dioica Stinging Nettle
    TREATMENT OPTIONS from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States This does not constitute a formal recommendation. When using herbicides always read the label, and when in doubt consult your farm advisor or county agent. This is an excerpt from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States and is available wholesale through the UC Weed Research & Information Center (wric.ucdavis.edu) or retail through the Western Society of Weed Science (wsweedscience.org) or the California Invasive Species Council (cal-ipc.org). Urtica dioica Stinging nettle Family: Urticaceae (nettle) NON-CHEMICAL CONTROL Cultural: grazing P not readily grazed by livestock Cultural: prescribed burning P below ground structures not affected Mechanical: mowing and cutting P regrows rapidly if mowed early in the growing season Mechanical: tillage P─F likely requires repeated tillage for several years Mechanical: grubbing, digging or hand P─F extensive rhizomes and stinging hairs make hand pulling pulling difficult CHEMICAL CONTROL The following specific use information is based on published papers and reports by researchers and land managers. Other trade names may be available, and other compounds also are labeled for this weed. Directions for use may vary between brands; see label before use. 2,4-D E Imazapic NIA Aminocyclopyrachlor + chlorsulfuron NIA Imazapyr G Aminopyralid E Metsulfuron NIA Chlorsulfuron NIA Paraquat P Clopyralid P Picloram E Dicamba E Rimsulfuron NIA Glyphosate E Sulfometuron NIA Hexazinone NIA Sulfosulfuron NIA Triclopyr E E = Excellent control, generally better than 95% * = Likely based on results of observations of G = Good control, 80-95% related species FLW = flowering F = Fair control, 50-80% NIA = No information available P = Poor control, below 50% Fa = Fall Control includes effects within the season of treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Stinging Nettle (Urtica Dioica
    OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible This is an author’s version published in: http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/25522 Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111997 To cite this version: Jeannin, Thomas and Yung, Loïc and Evon, Philippe and Labonne, Laurent and Ouagne, Pierre and Lecourt, Michael and Cazaux, David and Chalot, Michel and Placet, Vincent Native stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) growing spontaneously under short rotation coppice for phytomanagement of trace element contaminated soils: Fibre yield, processability and quality. (2020) Industrial Crops and Products, 145. 1119997. ISSN 0926-6690 Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the repository administrator: [email protected] Native stinging nettle ( Urtica dioica L.) growing spontaneously under short rotation coppice forphytomanagement of trace element contaminated soils: Fibre yield, processability and quality 3 b C C d Thomas Jeannin , Loïc Yung , Philippe Evon , Laurent Labonne , Pierre Ouagne , Michael Lecourte, David Cazamr, Michel Chalotb, Vincent Placet'•'" • PEMTO-STlnsdlutt, UPC/CNRS!ENSMM/UTBM, Uni1<ersitiBo,rgogne Promhe.-Comti, Besançon, Prome b LaborotOin Chrono-Environnement, UMR CNRS/UPC, UniversitiBowwgne Pranche-Comli, Montbéliard, Prome • LaboratOire de ChimieAi,oo-lndustrlelle (LCA), INP-ENSIACET, Toulouse, France • LaborotOire Géniede Production (U::P), Universitide Toulouse-ENIT, Tarbes, Prome •
    [Show full text]
  • Impatiens Glandulifera
    NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet Impatiens glandulifera Author of this fact sheet: Harry Helmisaari, SYKE (Finnish Environment Institute), P.O. Box 140, FIN-00251 Helsinki, Finland, Phone + 358 20 490 2748, E-mail: [email protected] Bibliographical reference – how to cite this fact sheet: Helmisaari, H. (2010): NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet – Impatiens glandulifera. – From: Online Database of the European Network on Invasive Alien Species – NOBANIS www.nobanis.org, Date of access x/x/201x. Species description Scientific name: Impatiens glandulifera Royle (Balsaminaceae). Synonyms: Impatiens roylei Walpers. Common names: Himalayan balsam, Indian balsam, Policeman's Helmet (GB), Drüsiges Springkraut, Indisches Springkraut (DE), kæmpe-balsamin (DK), verev lemmalts (EE), jättipalsami (FI), risalísa (IS), bitinė sprigė (LT), puķu sprigane (LV), Reuzenbalsemien (NL), kjempespringfrø (NO), Niecierpek gruczolowaty, Niecierpek himalajski (PL), недотрога железконосная (RU), jättebalsamin (SE). Fig. 1 and 2. Impatiens glandulifera in an Alnus stand in Helsinki, Finland, and close-up of the seed capsules, photos by Terhi Ryttäri and Harry Helmisaari. Fig. 3 and 4. White and red flowers of Impatiens glandulifera, photos by Harry Helmisaari. Species identification Impatiens glandulifera is a tall annual with a smooth, usually hollow and jointed stem, which is easily broken (figs. 1-4). The stem can reach a height of 3 m and its diameter can be up to several centimetres. The leaves are opposite or in whorls of 3, glabrous, lanceolate to elliptical, 5-18 cm long and 2.5-7 cm wide. The inflorescences are racemes of 2-14 flowers that are 25-40 mm long. Flowers are zygomorphic, their lowest sepal forming a sac that ends in a straight spur.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Roots Radio 2020 Spring Herbs 1
    RED CLOVER HERBAL APOTHECARY FARM SPRING HERBS Stinging Nettles (Urtica dioica) leaf, root and seeds One of my very favorite herbs • Use as a tea or in plant extracts. Use as a food - saute in olive oil with garlic, add to pasta dishes, make Nettle leaf lasagna. Use the dried seeds at end of growing season • Stinging nettle is a powerful source of many nutrients, calcium, manganese, magnesium, vitamin K, carotenoids, and protein • Because of its high mineral content, Nettle strengthens bones, hair, nails, and teeth. • Nettles build red blood cells so boosts iron levels. Many women this instead of iron pills when pregnant. Restoring iron levels can also relieve fatigue. • Nettles natural histamine may decrease seasonal allergic responses, such as hay fever. Suggested use for allergies - make a strong nourishing infusions (1 ounce of nettle leaf by weight, infused in 32 ounces of just-boiled water for 4-8 hours) Drink this daily in the time leading up to allergy season. This often eliminates or strongly decreases allergy symptoms • There's the old tale of Elders running naked through the Nettle patches. Stinging nettle hairs contain several chemicals that have pain-relieving and anti-inflammatory properties. This means that stinging nettle could help reduce pain and inflammation in conditions such as arthritis. • Nettle stings contain histamine that causes the initial reaction when you are stung. Dock leaf sap contains natural antihistamine, which helps to ease the stinging sensation. • Stinging Nettle seed is currently being used in clinical practice as a trophorestorative for degenerative kidney disease. A trophorestorative nourishes and restores the function of a tired, compromised, diseased tissue, organ, or system.
    [Show full text]
  • As an Aqueous Plant-Based Extract Fertilizer in Green Bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) Sustainable Agriculture
    sustainability Article Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica L.) as an Aqueous Plant-Based Extract Fertilizer in Green Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Sustainable Agriculture Branka Mariˇci´c 1,*, Sanja Radman 2, Marija Romi´c 2, Josipa Perkovi´c 3 , Nikola Major 3 , Branimir Urli´c 4, Igor Palˇci´c 3,* , Dean Ban 3, Zoran Zori´c 5 and Smiljana Goreta Ban 3 1 Department of Ecology, Agronomy and Aquaculture, University of Zadar, 23000 Zadar, Croatia 2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] (S.R.); [email protected] (M.R.) 3 Institute of Agriculture and Tourism, Department of Agriculture and Nutrition, 52440 Poreˇc,Croatia; [email protected] (J.P.); [email protected] (N.M.); [email protected] (D.B.); [email protected] (S.G.B.) 4 Institute for Adriatic Crops and Karst Reclamation, Department of Plant Sciences, 21000 Split, Croatia; [email protected] 5 Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (B.M.); [email protected] (I.P.); Tel.: +385-98-981-7375 (B.M.); +385-408-312 (I.P.) Abstract: Plant-based fertilizers, such as liquid plant extracts, contribute to the cultivation of veg- etables, particularly in organic production. The objective of this study was to determine if aqueous nettle extract could be successfully used as a fertilizer, applied on the soil and foliarly, in green bean Citation: Mariˇci´c,B.; Radman, S.; production under field conditions. The hypothesis was that it could successfully replace mineral Romi´c,M.; Perkovi´c,J.; Major, N.; fertilizers and be integrated into sustainable and organic agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Urtica Urens
    Dwarf Nettle Urtica urens Weed management guide for Australian vegetable production INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT Identification Dwarf nettle (Urtica urens) is an annual herbaceous plant, native to Mediterranean Europe, that grows between 10 and 75 cm in height. Leaves are up to 6 cm in length but often 1-3 cm, oval to elliptical in shape, deeply toothed or serrated on the edges, green to dark green, and covered with scattered stinging hairs. Clusters of small, greenish-white flowers form where 1 the leaves join the stems. Dwarf nettle is also known in Australia as small nettle, lesser nettle, or stinging nettle. Vegetable farmers are likely to be very familiar with it where it is found on their farm, and to be well aware of how to identify it. However depending on its stage of growth, it may be possible to mis-identify it as tall nettle (Urtica dioica), native scrub 2 nettle (Urtica incisa) or potentially deadnettle (Lamium amplexicaule), particularly where the plants are recently germinated. Figure 1 includes a series of photos of dwarf nettle at different life stages in order to facilitate correct identifica- tion on-farm, from a young seedling through to a mature 3 flowering plant. Dwarf nettle may be mis-identified as native scrub nettle (Urtica incisa), a common species native to Australia. 4 Compared to dwarf nettle, native scrub nettle reaches up to 1m in height, has longer lance-shaped leaves (up to 12 cm) that are paler beneath, fewer stinging hairs, and spike-like clusters of flowers that can be longer than the leaf stalks.
    [Show full text]
  • FSC Nettlecombe Court Nature Review 2014
    FSC Nettlecombe Court Nature Review 2014 Compiled by: Sam Tuddenham Nettlecombe Court- Nature Review 2014 Introduction The purpose of this report is to review and share the number of different species that are present in the grounds of Nettlecombe Court. A significant proportion of this data has been generated by FSC course tutors and course attendees studying at Nettlecombe court on a variety of courses. Some of the data has been collected for the primary purpose of species monitoring for nationwide conservation charities e.g. The Big Butterfly Count and Bee Walk Survey Scheme. Other species have just been noted by members or staff when out in the grounds. These records are as accurate as possible however we accept that there may be species missing. Nettlecombe Court Nettlecombe Court Field Centre of the Field Studies Council sits just inside the eastern border of Exmoor national park, North-West of Taunton (Map 1). The house grid reference is 51o07’52.23”N, 32o05’8.65”W and this report only documents wildlife within the grounds of the house (see Map 2). The estate is around 60 hectares and there is a large variety of environment types: Dry semi- improved neutral grassland, bare ground, woodland (large, small, man –made and natural), bracken dominated hills, ornamental shrubs (lawns/ domestic gardens) and streams. These will all provide different habitats, enabling the rich diversity of wildlife found at Nettlecombe Court. Nettlecombe court has possessed a meteorological station for a number of years and so a summary of “MET” data has been included in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • (Stinging Nettle) As a Blood Sugar Lowering Herb: a Case Report
    DIABETES RESEARCH ISSN 2379-6375 http://dx.doi.org/10.17140/DROJ-1-119 Open Journal Case Report The Use of Urtica dioica (Stinging Nettle) *Corresponding author as a Blood Sugar Lowering Herb: A Case Bisrat Hailemeskel, PharmD, MS, RPh Associate Professor Director of Drug Information Services Report and a Review of the Literature College of Pharmacy Howard University 2300 4th Street, N.W Bisrat Hailemeskel1* and Fekadu Fullas2 Washington, DC 20059, USA Tel. (202) 806-4214 Fax: (202) 806-7748 1Associate Professor and Director of Drug Information Services, College of Pharmacy, Howard [email protected] E-mail: University, 2300 4th Street, N.W, Washington, DC 20059, USA 2Clinical Pharmacist, Unity Point Health-St. Luke’s, 2720 Stone Park Boulevard, Sioux City, IA Volume 1 : Issue 5 Article Ref. #: 1000DROJ1119 51104, USA Article History ABSTRACT Received: September 24th, 2015 Accepted: October 15th, 2015 Introduction: Medicinal plants have been used in traditional medicine to manage blood sugar Published: October 15th, 2015 levels in patients with diabetes, but only a few of them have received scientific investigation. Many patients tend to self-medicate with herbal supplements, based on information they obtain from various sources. Citation Hailemeskel B, Fullas F. The use of Case Summary: A 57 year-old African-American male with diabetes had been prescribed met- Urtica dioica (stinging nettle) as a formin. He started on his own taking Stinging Nettle concurrently with metformin, which led blood sugar lowering herb: a case re- to hypoglycemia. He then stopped taking metformin and continued with the herb. His morning port and a review of the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMER WILDFLOWERS Late May, June, July, Early August (96 Species)
    SUMMER WILDFLOWERS Late May, June, July, Early August (96 species) Cat-tail Family (Typhaceae) ____ Yellow Sweet Clover ____ Cat-tail (Typha angustifolia) (Melilotus officinalis)* ____ Crimson Clover (Trifolium incarnatum)* Water-plaintain Family (Alismataceae) ____ Red Clover (T. pratense)* ____ Water-plantain (Alisma subcordatum) ____ White Clover (T. repens)* Arum Family (Araceae) Spurge Family (Euphorbiaceae) ___ Jack-in-the-Pulpit (Arisaema atrorubens) ____ Flowering Spurge (Euphorbia corollata) ___ Green Dragon (A. dracontium) Touch-me-not Family (Balsaminaceae) Spiderwort Family (Commelinaceae) ____ Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) ____ Virginia Dayflower (Commelina virginica) Mallow Family (Malvaceae) Rush Family (Juncaceae) ____ Common Mallow (Malva neglecta)* ____ Common Rush (Juncus effusus) St. John’s Wort Family (Clusiaceae) Lily Family (Liliaceae) ____ St. John’s Wort (Hypericum dolabriforme) ____ Nodding Wild Onion (Allium ceruum) ____ Field Garlic (A. stellatum) Parsley Family (Apiaceae) ____ Wild Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis)* ____ Queen-Anne’s Lace (Daucus carota)* ____ Orange Daylily (Hemerocallis fulva)* ____ False Solomon’s Seal Primrose Family (Primulaceae) (Smilacina acemosa) ____ Fringed Loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata) Nettle Family (Urticaceae) Gentian Family (Gentianaceae) ____ Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica) ____ Rose Pink (Sabatia angularis) Knotweed Family (Polygonaceae) Dogbane Family (Apocynaceae) ____ Curled Dock (Rumex crispus)* ____ Intermediate Dogbane (Apocynum medium) Pink Family (Caryophyllaceae) ____ Myrtle (Vinca minor)* ____ Deptford Pink (Dianthus armeria)* ____ Common Chickweed (Stellavia media)* Milkweed Family (Asclepiadaceae) ____ Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incartata) Buttercup Family (Ranunculaceae) ____ Common Milkweed (A.syriaca) ____ Thimbleweed (Anemone virginiana) ____ Butterfly Weed (A. tuberosa) ____ Cliff Meadow Rue (Thalictrum clavatum) ____ Whirled Milkweed (A. verticillata) ____ Tall Meadow Rue (T. polygamum) ____ Green Milkweed (A.
    [Show full text]
  • Printable Intro (PDF)
    plant fibres & textiles what are they? what are the benefits? There are 3 main types of plant fibres: bast Our perception of ‘cloth’ has changed a lot over (mainly from stems – e.g. flax and hemp), leaf time. We currently have a textile industry that’s (e.g. pineapple and sisal) and seed (e.g. cotton laden with problems. Cheap, synthetic clothes are and kapok); but also wood (from trees, naturally), mass-produced in countries where people grass (e.g. bamboo) and fruit (e.g. coconut). The (including children), desperate to make a living, fibres are elongated, supportive strands are forced to work in dangerous and unhealthy composed of individual cellulose cells that are conditions to produce clothing for a fickle and held together with gums and pectins. Plant fibres ever-changing market. Clothes are quickly have a long history of use in textiles, cordage and discarded, wasting resources and creating a huge paper, and more recently in technical applications disposal problem. In the past, cloth was highly – e.g. composite materials. valued and precious. Until the 19th century, all Fibre-yielding plants are found wherever clothing was made from natural fibres, including vegetation exists around the globe. Indigenous hemp and flax, either at home, or by a tailor or communities have used these plants for both seamstress if that could be afforded. People had cordage and textiles. Archaeological studies have a limited wardrobe (sometimes only one set of identified the use of cellulosic fibres from at least clothes!), which was looked after, mended and the Neolithic period, and some long traditions of even handed on after their death.
    [Show full text]
  • Stinging Nettles As Potential Food Additive: Effect of Drying Processes on Quality Characteristics of Leaf Powders
    foods Article Stinging Nettles as Potential Food Additive: Effect of Drying Processes on Quality Characteristics of Leaf Powders Swathi Sirisha Nallan Chakravartula 1 , Roberto Moscetti 1,* , Barbara Farinon 1 , Vittorio Vinciguerra 1, Nicolò Merendino 1 , Giacomo Bedini 1, Lilia Neri 2, Paola Pittia 2 and Riccardo Massantini 1,* 1 Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-Food and Forest Systems, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy; [email protected] (S.S.N.C.); [email protected] (B.F.); [email protected] (V.V.); [email protected] (N.M.); [email protected] (G.B.) 2 Faculty of Bioscience and Technologies for Food, Agriculture, and Environment, University of Teramo, 01100 Viterbo, Italy; [email protected] (L.N.); [email protected] (P.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (R.M.); [email protected] (R.M.); Tel.: +39-0761-35-75-39 (R.M.); +39-0761-35-74-96 (R.M.) Abstract: Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) is a ubiquitous, multi-utility, and under-utilized crop with potential health benefits owing to its nutritional and bioactive components. The objective of the work is to produce powders by drying wild stinging nettle leaves as a storable, low-cost functional additive to be used in bakery and ready-to-cook products. Convective drying (CD) and freeze-drying (FD) were applied on unblanched (U) or blanched (B) leaves, which were then milled to nettle powders (NPs). The obtained NPs were evaluated for selected physicochemical (moisture, color), techno- functional (flow indices, hygroscopicity), and phytochemical (pigments, phenols) characteristics as well as mineral contents. Blanching improved mass transfer and reduced the oxidative degradation Citation: Nallan Chakravartula, S.S.; of pigments during drying, but it caused a loss of total phenols content, antioxidant activity, and Moscetti, R.; Farinon, B.; Vinciguerra, potassium content.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxon Group Common Name Taxon Name First Recorded Last
    First Last Taxon group Common name Taxon name recorded recorded amphibian Common Frog Rana temporaria 1987 2017 amphibian Common Toad Bufo bufo 1987 2017 amphibian Smooth Newt Lissotriton vulgaris 1987 1987 annelid Alboglossiphonia heteroclita Alboglossiphonia heteroclita 1986 1986 annelid duck leech Theromyzon tessulatum 1986 1986 annelid Glossiphonia complanata Glossiphonia complanata 1986 1986 annelid leeches Erpobdella octoculata 1986 1986 bird Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula 2016 2017 bird Carrion Crow Corvus corone 2017 2017 bird Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs 2015 2017 bird Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita 2014 2016 bird Coot Fulica atra 2014 2014 bird Fieldfare Turdus pilaris 2015 2015 bird Great Tit Parus major 2015 2015 bird Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 2013 2017 bird Jay Garrulus glandarius 1999 1999 bird Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 1999 2015 bird Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 1986 1986 bird Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2014 2015 bird Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 2000 2000 bird Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 2015 2015 bird Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 2017 2017 bird Robin Erithacus rubecula 2017 2017 bird Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata 1986 1986 bird Tawny Owl Strix aluco 2006 2015 bird Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus 2015 2015 bird Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 2015 2015 bird Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella 2000 2000 conifer Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 2004 2004 conifer European Larch Larix decidua 2004 2004 conifer Lawson's Cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 2004 2004 conifer Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris 1986 2004 crustacean
    [Show full text]